gender differences in language learning style and …

Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 3 No.2, January 2014, pp. 77-88

77

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

Chayata Viriya & Sutthirak Sapsirin

Chulalongkorn University [email protected]

[email protected]

Abstract: This paper seeks to investigate the gender differences in language learning style

and language learning strategies. The study used the perceptual learning-style preference

questionnaire (PLSPQ) to investigate the learning style preferences and the Strategy

Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) version 7.0 designed by Oxford (1990) to find the

learning strategy preferences of first year University students at the faculty of Information

and Communication Technology (ICT) in Thailand. These were administered to 150 learners.

The results indicate that gender does have effects on language learning style but there is no

effect on language learning strategies. The implication of the results for language teachers

and learners are also presented.

Keywords: language learning style, language learning strategies, gender

PERBEDAAN-PERBEDAAN GENDER DALAM GAYA BELAJAR

BAHASA DAN STRATEGI-STRATEGI BELAJAR BAHASA

Abstrak: Makalah ini berusaha untuk menyelidiki perbedaan-perbedaan gender dalam gaya

belajar bahasa dan strategi-strategi belajar bahasa. Kajian ini menggunakan angket pilihan

gaya belajar perseptual (the perceptual learning-style preference questionnaire (PLSPQ))

untuk menyelidiki pilihan-pilihan gaya belajar dan Inventaris Strategi untuk Belajar Bahasa

(the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)) versi 7.0 yang dirancang oleh Oxford

(1990) untuk menemukan pilihan-pilihan strategi belajar mahasiswa Universitas di Fakultas

Teknologi Komunikasi dan Informasi. Angket-angket tersebut diberikan pada 150

pembelajar. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa gender memang memiliki pengaruh terhadap gaya

belajar bahasa, tapi tidak berpengaruh pada strategi-strategi belajar bahasa. Implikasi dari

hasil ini bagi para guru dan pembelajar bahasa juga dihadirkan.

Kata kunci: Gaya belajar bahasa, strategi-strategi belajar bahasa, gender

Learning style and learning strategies have

been the topic of discussions for a long time.

Many researchers have been trying to find

possible factors that affect learning style and

strategies. One of the factors that caught the

attention is gender differences. Males and

females learn differently from each other

(Ebel, 1999; Cavanaugh, 2002, as cited in

Tatarinceva, 2009). Males tend to be more

visual, more peers motivated and learn less by

listening than females. In contrast, females

tend to be auditory and learn well when it is

quiet (Marcus, 1999; Pizzo, 2000, as cited in

Tatarinceva, 2009). Tannen (1992) suggests

that male students prefer doing learning tasks

which involve the talk in public settings more

because they feel compelled to establish or

maintain their position in the group. On the

other hand, female students prefer talking

more in private settings because they see

conversation as an important way of

maintaining relationships. Furthermore,

Viriya & Sapsarin, Gender differences in language learning style and language learning strategies

78

females are better than males at language

learning tasks relating to remembering verbal

information, faces, names, and object

locations. As for males, they do better with the

travel directions tasks (Colley, 2001; Ong,

1999; Larrabee & Crook, 1993 as cited in

Tatarinceva, 2009). Also, Kraft and Nichel

(1995) proved that females were better at

verbal fluency, vocabulary and quality of

speech, but male students were better at

writing. Still, despite many studies,

inconclusive evidence on the influence of

gender differences has been found (see Oxford

and Nyikos, 1989 or Taguchi, 2002).

As for learning strategies, various

learners’ factors have been identified as

factors related to language learning strategies,

including language being learned, level of

language learning, proficiency, degree of

metacognitive awareness, gender, affective

variables such as attitudes, motivation, and

language learning goals, specific personality

traits, overall personality type, learning style,

career orientation or field of specialization,

national origin, aptitude, language teaching

methods, task requirements, and type of

strategy training (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). In

terms of gender and language learning

strategies, Kamarul et al. (2009) show that

females report using language learning

strategies more often than males and there are

significant differences between genders in the

use of affective and metaphysic strategies.

Females tend to use them more often than

males. According to the aforementioned

issue, it can be seen that gender is one of the

factors that can influence both language

learning styles and strategies. Therefore, the

present study aims to investigate the gender

differences in language learning styles and

language strategies that Thai learners prefer.

The objectives of the present study are to

identify language learning styles and

strategies used by first year university students

in Thailand, and to examine gender

differences in those two variables.

Language Learning Styles

According to Reid (1998), language learning

style is an ‘internally based characteristics,

often not perceived or consciously used by

learners, for the intake and comprehension of

new information’ (p. ix). Reid (1998)

reiterates that there are six major learning

style preferences, covering visual, auditory,

kinesthetic, tactile, group and individual.

Firstly, students who prefer the visual learning

style ‘learn well from seeing words in books,

on the chalkboard, and in workbooks.

Students can remember and understand

information and instructions better if their

teachers read them. Students will not need a

lot of oral explanation and they can learn

alone with a book’ (p. 165). Secondly,

students who prefer the auditory learning style

‘learn well from hearing words spoken and

from oral explanation. Students can remember

information by reading aloud or by moving

their lips as they read; especially, when they

are learning new materials. They will learn

well from audiotapes, lectures, and class

discussion’ (p. 165). Thirdly, students who

prefer the kinesthetic learning style learn best

by ‘experience or by being physically

involved in classroom experiences. Students

can remember information well when they

actively participate in activities, role-play,

field trips and etc’ (p. 166). Fourthly, students

who prefer the tactile learning style learn best

‘when they have an opportunity to do ‘hands-

on’ experiences with materials. That is,

working on experiments in a laboratory,

handling and building models, and touching

and working with materials provide students

with the most successful learning situations’

(p. 166). Fifthly, students who prefer the

group learning style learn best when ‘they are

studying in a group or at least with another

student. Students value group interaction and

class work with other students and can

remember information better when they work

with two or three classmates. The stimulation

and motivation students gain from group work


79

or learn or work with others help them learn

and understand new information better’ (p.

166). Finally, students who prefer the

individual learning style learn best when ‘they

work alone. Students can think better when

they study alone, and they remember

information learned by themselves. They

understand materials best when they learn

them alone, and they make better progress in

learning when they work by themselves’ (p.

166).

There are some studies in the past about

language learning styles and students’

learning. According to Reid (1987), one of the

studies presents the results of a questionnaire

that was used to ask 1,388 students to identify

their perceptual learning style preferences.

Statistical analyses of the questionnaires

indicated that NSS (native speakers of

English) learning style preferences often differ

significantly from those of NNSS (non-native

speakers of English). In other words, ESL

students from different language backgrounds

sometimes differ from one another in their

learning style preferences. Moreover, other

variables such as gender, length of time

abroad, field of study, level of education,

TOEFL score, and age are related to

differences in learning styles.

In Thailand, Wasanasomsithi (2003) has

studied learning style of Thai learners who

learn English as a foreign language. The

results show that the learners prefer group

learning and auditory style than individual or

visual style, which contradicts Reid’s study

(1987).

As for learning style and gender, Mulalic

et al. (2009) examine the learning styles of

students, and the differences in their learning

styles according to their gender and ethnicity.

There was a significant difference in learning

style between male and female students

regarding auditory and kinesthetic learning

styles. The mean score for the male was

higher in both cases, which means that male

students favored kinesthetic and auditory

leaning when compared with the female

counterparts. This is in agreement with Dunn

and Griggs’ (1993, as cited in Mulalic et al.,

2009) study in which they found significant

differences in learning styles of Mexican and

Anglo-American students. Mexican American

males had strongest preferences for tactile

learning but female participants show a

different result.

Moreover, according to Wehrwein et al.

(2007), students are believed to have

individual learning style preferences. They

assessed students’ preferences by using the

VARK questionnaires, which was created by

Fleming (Visual, Auditory, Read-write and

Kinesthetic) to undergraduate physiology

majors enrolled in a capstone physiology

laboratory at Michigan State University. The

result is that male and female students have

significantly

different learning styles. A

majority of male students preferred

multimodal

instruction, specifically, four

modes (VARK), whereas a majority of female

students preferred single-mode instruction

with a preference toward the kinesthetic style.

Thus, it is the responsibility of the instructors

to address this diversity of learning styles and

develop appropriate learning approach.

In addition, Maubacha and Morgan

(2001) examine the truth of the relationship

between gender and language learning styles.

They examine a small sample of 57 girls and

15 boys A level French and German. They

found four main gender related characteristics:

a male willingness to take risks, a male

willingness to speak spontaneously in a

foreign language, a greater male self

confidence about asking questions of the

teacher to aid their own understanding and the

female students’ interest in reading and

presenting well-organized written work.

Language Learning Strategies

There are many definitions and explanations

for the concept of learning strategies. Rubin

(1981, as cited in Purpura, 1999), identified


80

six strategy types: clarification or verification,

monitoring, memorization, guessing or

inductive inferencing, deductive reasoning

and independent practice. O’Malley and

Chamot (1990, as cited in Purpura, 1999)

proposed the framework of strategies, which

distinguishes three major strategy types. They

are metacognitive strategies, cognitive

strategies and socio-affective strategies. Each

strategy type is further divided into a number

of individual strategies. For example, the

metacognitive strategies include advance

organizers, directed attention, selective

attention, self-management, advance

preparation, self-monitoring, delayed

production and self-evaluation.

Lastly, Oxford (1990) proposed two

major classes of learning strategies, which are

direct and indirect. These two classes are

subdivided into a total of six groups, which

are memory, cognitive, compensation

strategies. These are all under the direct class.

The metacognitive, affective, and social are

under the indirect class.

Direct strategies or memory strategies are

the language learning strategies that directly

involve the target language (Oxford, 1990, p.

37,). The first type of direct strategies is

memory strategies, which consist of creating

mental linkages, applying images and sounds,

reviewing well, and employing actions

(Oxford, 1990).

The second types of direct strategies is

cognitive strategies, such as summarizing or

reasoning deductively, enabling learners to

understand and produce new language by

many different means (Oxford, 1990, p. 37,).

Cognitive strategies are essential in learning a

new language. It consists of four sets,

practicing, receiving and sending messages,

analyzing and reasoning and creating structure

for input and output (Oxford, 1990).

The third type of direct strategies is

compensation strategies, like guessing or

using synonyms, which allow learners to use

the language despite their often large gaps in

knowledge (Oxford, 1990, p. 37).

Compensation allows learners to produce

spoken or written expression in the new

language without complete knowledge like to

guess the meaning of a word, gestures or

coining words. Many of compensation

strategies are used to compensate the lack of

appropriate vocabulary or grammatical

knowledge. This way will help learners to

understand more about target language and

help learners to keep on using the target

language by practicing it. Sometimes it helps

learners to become more fluent in what they

already know and may lead them to gain new

information about what is appropriate or

permissible in the target language. It consists

of two strategies in the compensation

strategies, which are guessing intelligently and

overcoming limitations in speaking and

writing (Oxford, 1990).

Indirect strategies are ‘the strategies that

underpin the business of language learning’

(Oxford, 1990, p. 135,). It is called indirect

because these strategies support and manage

language learning without directly involving

the target language. They are divided into

metacognitive, affective and social strategies

(Oxford, 1990). The first type of indirect

strategies is metacognitive strategies, which

means beyond, beside, or with the cognitive.

Therefore, metacognitive strategies are actions

which go beyond purely cognitive devices,

and which provide a way for learners to

coordinate their own learning process

(Oxford, 1990, p. 136). It consists of three

strategies in this set, which is centering your

learning, arranging and planning your learning

and evaluating your learning (Oxford, 1990).

The second type of indirect strategies is

affective strategies, which refer to emotions,

attitudes, motivations, and values (Oxford,

1990 p. 140). This strategy should not be

overlooked because positive emotions and

attitudes can make language learning far more

effective and enjoyable. On the other hand,

negative feelings can stunt progress. For


81

example, a certain amount of anxiety

sometimes helps learners to reach their peak

performance levels, but too much anxiety can

block language learning. Within this affective

strategies, they consist of three sub-strategies

that will help students to achieve it, which are

lowering your anxiety, encouraging yourself

and taking your emotional temperature

(Oxford, 1990).

The third type of indirect strategies is

social strategies: language is a form of social

behavior; it is a communication, and

communication occurs between and among

people. Learning a language thus involves

other people, and appropriate social strategies

are very important in this process (Oxford,

1990, p. 144). There are three strategies to

achieve this social strategy, asking questions,

cooperating with others, and empathizing with

others (Oxford, 1990).

Several studies have been conducted on

language learning strategies. For example,

Wafa (2003) reports on the current English

language learning strategies used by Arabic-

speaking English-majors enrolled at An-Najah

National University in Palestine. The subjects

of the study are male and female students still

studying for their B.A. degree. The results of

this study show that An-Najah English majors

use learning strategies with high to medium

frequency, and the highest rank (79.6%) is for

metacognitive strategies while the lowest

(63%) is for compensation strategies. In

general, the results show that gender and

proficiency have no significant differences on

the use of strategies.

Another gender study on language

learning strategies belongs to Kamarul et al.

(2009), the findings of the study show that

there are important gender differences in the

use of language learning strategies. Female

students also tend to use overall language

learning strategies more often than males,

especially with affective and metaphysic

strategies (Oxford 1990).

METHOD

To understand learning styles of individuals is

not an easy task. The instrument to examine

learning styles is the key. It should be reliable

and valid. (Reid, 1998) There are many

language learning style preferences survey

(Reid, 1984, as cited in Watanasin, 2004).

However, among the learning style inventory,

the Reid’s Perceptual Learning Style

Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ) is the first

one designed for English as Second Language

(ESL) students at the university level (Reid,

1984) and it matches the present study’s

purpose.

The PLSPQ is in the form of the five

point Likert scale, which is adapted from the

original seven point Likert scale format of

Gardner’s attitude and motivation test ranging

from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

There are 30 questions with statements for

each of the six learning style preferences:

visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, group

learning, and individual learning. The

questions are all random (Reid, 1998).

For language learning strategies, the

instrument that is widely used for

investigating the language learning strategies

is the Strategy Inventory for Language

Learning (SILL), constructed by Oxford. It

has been used in many parts of the world with

learners of many different languages, for

example, Chinese, English, French, Thai,

Turkish, etc. This study adopts the version 7

SILL, containing 50 items. It is geared to

students of English as a second or foreign

language and takes about 30 minutes to

complete, depending on the skill level of the

students. The language is very simplified. The

SILL is five-point scale ranging from ‘never

or almost never’ to ‘always or almost always’.

The average indicates how often the learner

tends to use learning strategies. The averages

for each part of the SILL indicate which

strategy groups the learner tends to use most

frequently (Oxford, 1990).


82

The reason why Oxford’s SILL version

7.0 was used in this study is because SILL is

approved as ‘the most comprehensive

classification of learning strategies to date’

and it is also the most often used strategy

scale around the world (Ellis, 1994).

Moreover, Ellis (1994) states that Oxford’s

taxonomy is unique in that it made no

distinction between strategies that were

invoked in both language learning and

language use.

Each choice of the questionnaire covers

different strategies. There are six choices,

remembering more effectively, using your

mental processes, compensating for missing

knowledge, organizing and evaluating your

learning, managing your emotions and

learning with others (Oxford, 1990).

The researcher collected the data by

herself after the midterm exam on the 3rd

of

August 2010 at the faculty of Information and

Communication Technology (ICT), of a

university in Thailand. Before handing out the

questionnaires at the end of the class, the

researcher explained to students what this

research was about, what they had to do and

asked for their cooperation.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the results of the study

and discusses the findings. The first part deals

with the findings about the overall learning

style preferences of male and female ICT

students. The second part deals with their

overall language learning strategies.

Table 1: Number of students for each learning

style preference

Language learning styles

Male (70 students) Female (80 students)

Maj

or Min

or Neg

ligi

ble

Major Min

or Neglig

ible

Visual 18 46 6 Visual 31 48 1

Tactile 19 48 3 Tactile 31 49 0

Audi-

tory 24 24 22 Audi-

tory 36 46 0

Group 35 31 4 Group 47 33 0

Kinest

hetic 20 44 6 Kines-

thetic 34 46 1

Indivi-

dual 15 32 23 Indivi-

dual 28 52 18

As for the interpretation of language

learning styles, there are three major

interpretations, which are major, minor and

negligible. Major learning styles score

indicate areas where students can function

best as a learner. Minor learning style score

indicates areas where students can function

well as a learner. Negligible learning style

score indicates that students may have

difficulties with learning in that way.

Table 2 Percentage of students for each

learning style preference

Language learning styles

Male (%) Female (%)

Maj

or Min

or Neglig

ible Maj

or Min

or Neglig

ible

Visual 25 65 8 Visual 38 60 1

Tactile 27 68 4 Tactile 38 61 0

Audito

ry 34 34 31 Audito

ry 45 57 0

Group 50 44 5 Group 58 41 0

Kinest

hetic 28 62 8 Kinest

hetic 42 51 1

Individ

ual 21 45 32 Individ

ual 35 65 22

Table 1 shows the number of male and

female students who chose different types of

learning styles based on PLSPQ

questionnaires. As the total number of the

participants was different (male=70,

female=80), to compare their learning styles,

percentage of learning style preference was

calculated (Table 2).

To clarify what it has already been

presented, the mean scores of male and female


83

learning styles preferences were calculated.

According to Reid (1987), the mean score

17.91 and above is considered major learning

style preference; the mean score 15.91 to

17.90 is considered minor learning style

preference; and the mean score 15.91 or lower

is considered negative learning style

preference.

Table 3: Mean scores of male and female

learning styles preferences

Male Type Female Type

Visual 16.69 Minor 17.45 Minor

Tactile 16.97 Minor 17.93 Major

Auditory 17.49 Minor 18.35 Major

Group 18.22 Major 19.26 Major

Kinesthetic 17.07 Minor 18.25 Major

Individual 14.91 Negative 16.43 Minor

Table 3 shows the preferences of learning

styles by both males and females. As it can be

seen, the visual learning style was chosen as a

minor style by both groups (mean=16.68 for

males and 17.45 for females). The tactile style

was chosen as a minor style by males

(mean=16.97) and a major style by females

(mean=17.93). For the auditory style, it was

chosen as a minor style by males

(mean=17.49) and a major styles by females

(mean=18.35). For the group style, it was

chosen as a major style by both groups

(mean= 18.22 for males and 19.26 for

females). For the kinesthetic style, it was

chosen as a minor style by males

(mean=17.07) and a major style by females

(mean=18.25). Finally, for the individual

style, it was chosen as a negative style by

males (mean=14.91) and a minor style by

females (mean=16.43).

The results show that for the visual style,

males and females can learn well with the

eyes (seeing). For the tactile, females can

learn best and males can learn well with

hands-on activities. For the auditory, females

can learn best and males can learn well with

the ears (listening). For the group style, both

females and males can learn best when they

are working with their friends but females

tend to learn with this style better than males.

For the kinesthetic, females can learn best and

males can learn well with experiential

learning. Lastly, for the individual style,

females can learn well and males have some

difficulties learning or working alone.

As for the result of language learning

strategies, there are five interpretations for

each strategy, which are always or almost

always used, usually used, sometimes used,

generally not used and never or almost never

used. The abbreviations of the interpretations

and strategies are as follows:

H1: high, always or almost always used;

H2: high, usually used; M: medium,

sometimes used; L1: low, generally not used;

L2: low, never or almost never used; A:

remembering more effectively; B: using all

your mental processes; C: compensating for

missing knowledge; D: organizing and

evaluating your learning; E: managing your

emotions; F: Learning with other

Male Used Female Used

A 2.95 Sometimes 3.05 Sometimes

B 3.13 Sometimes 3.15 Sometimes

C 3.08 Sometimes 3.18 Sometimes

D 3.36 Sometimes 3.28 Sometimes

E 3.10 Sometimes 3.23 Sometimes

F 2.97 Sometimes 3.26 Sometimes

The above table shows the use of learning

strategies by both males and females. As it

can be seen, all of the strategies are sometime

used. (mean for male = 2.95, 3.13, 3.08, 3.36,

3.10, and 2.97, respectively and mean for

female = 3.05, 3.15, 3.18, 3.28, 3.23, and 3.26

respectively)

For remembering more effectively,

females used it more than males. For using all


84

your mental processes, females and males

equally used it. For compensating for missing

knowledge, females used it more than males.

For organizing and evaluating your learning,

males used it more than females. For

managing your emotions, females used it

more than males. Finally, for learning with

others, females used it more than males.

From all of these results, it shows that

there is a gender difference in language

learning styles. For tactile, males prefer the

minor learning style while females prefer the

major learning styles as well as auditory and

kinesthetic. For individual, males prefer the

negative learning style while females prefer

the minor learning style. For visual, both

males and females prefer the minor learning

style. Finally for group, both males and

females prefer the major learning style.

However, for language learning strategies,

there is no difference in strategies. Both

groups sometimes used all the strategies.

This study aims to study gender

differences in language learning style and

strategies. The result of the study shows that

both males and females were different in

terms of styles but were not different in terms

of strategies.

The results of the study are different from

Reid (1987) in two aspects. Firstly, according

to Reid’s study, Thai learners who learn

English see themselves as having the

individual learning style preference. However,

this study shows that they prefer the group

learning style rather than the individual

learning style. Secondly, according to Reid’s

study, Thai learners who learn English see

themselves as haing the visual learner.

However, this study shows that they prefer the

auditory learning. Moreover, this study shares

the same results with Wasanasomsithi’s study

(2003) who conducted a research on learning

styles of English as second language learners

of Thai students.

The present study also found that they

prefer the group and the auditory as their

major preferences. Visual, tactile and

kinesthetic are of the minor preferences and

the individual learning are of the negative

preference.

The researcher thinks that the reason why

both males and females preferred the group

style and why individual style was negative is

because our Thai culture or Asian culture

seems to value Collectivism (Kim et al., 1984,

as cited in Kim, 2004). In the collectivism

culture, students seem to hesitate to answer

the questions, cannot freely express their

opinions, remain silent during class, etc.

Collectivism promotes adherence to norms,

respect for elders, group consensus, fostering

interdependence and group success and etc.

For this study, the researcher believes that

Thailand’s educational system is categorized

in this collectivism category. This is in

contrast with the Western individualism (Kim

et al., 1984, as cited in Kim, 2004).

Individualism mainly promotes self-

expression, individual thinking, personal

choice, fostering independence and individual

achievement, etc. This can answer why

language learners had different styles in

Reid’s study and same styles in

Wasanasomsithi’s (2003) research. In terms of

culture, this reason can be confirmed by Reid

(1998) as he believes that people from

different culture of language learning and

strategies may value different learning

characteristics. Moreover, Marshall (1991, as

cited in Wasanasomsithi, 2003) shows that

teaching style may affect the learners’

learning style. Therefore, this might affect the

different learning styles’ of learners.

Furthermore according to Reid (1998),

learning styles are internally based

characteristics and some theorists even believe

that learning styles are rooted in fixed genetic

traits. (as cited in Penger et al., 2008)

Therefore, from the researcher’s point of

view, every individual has his styles of

learning. This means that males or females,

old or young learners or learners from


85

Thailand or any other countries have their

unique ways of learning that are rooted in

fixed genetic traits or internally based

characteristics that none of us can observe or

investigate why they prefer this style instead

of others.

For the language learning strategies, this

current study shows that males and females

had similar learning strategies. They both

sometimes used the strategies. This disagrees

with Kamarul et al. (2009) as they state that

there are gender differences.

One of the reasons why there is no

difference in learning strategies in both males

and females in this study may be because of

the culture and the educational system. For

example, according to Wafa (2003), the study

reported on the current English language

learning strategies used by Arabic-speaking

English-majors enrolled at An-Najah National

University in Palestine. In general, the results

showed that gender and proficiency had no

significant differences on the use of strategies,

which was similar to the result in this study.

They believe that the use of some individual

strategies could be attributed to culture and

educational system in Palestine where

students had very limited opportunities to use

functional practice strategies especially in

large classes. This is quite similar to the

study’s population that learners were in large

classes. Also, according to Harley (1986)

Singleton (1989) and Moyer (2004), the

individual learner’s age has been identified as

a relevant factor that leads to different

learning strategies as well as gender.

However, there are also many theorists

who have different ideas from Harley (1986),

Singleton (1989) and Moyer (2004).

According to Graham (1997) who based her

work on O’Malley & Chamot (1990) and

developed it further, Graham (1997) sees the

learning strategies as inner processes which

are difficult to observe. According to Ehrman

and Oxford’s (1990) study, they failed to

discover any evidence of differing language

learning strategy use between the two genders.

Furthermore, a study of Yang (1998)

involves questionnaire and group interviews

in Taiwan. It made some interesting

discoveries about her students’ language

learning strategy use that although her

students were aware of various language

learning strategies, few of them actually

reported using them (as cited in Griffith,

2004).

Therefore, in order to truly understand

each learning styles and strategies, we have to

consider a variety of variables and it is indeed

needed for a further investigation.

CONCLUSION

For this part, the researcher would like to

suggest some comments to readers toward the

results of the study. The researcher would like

to suggest that teachers should not focus on

some activities that are appropriate to only

one learning style but they should integrate

them all in the class, so that learners with

different leaning styles and strategy

preferences can learn best. For example, for

the benefits of learners, if teacher only uses

pictures or graphs, only students with the

visual style preference can learn best. This

ignores the learners of the other styles.

Moreover, before the class, teachers should do

a survey in order to know the learners’

preferences for the benefits of learners. For

example, the teacher can use PLSPQ to find

out the learners’ preferences. Once teachers

know the results, teachers can arrange the

teaching style that matches the learners’

needs.

For learning strategies, the results of the

study show no differences. Both males and

females sometimes use learning strategies.

This may be because of the age factor. The

population in this study is 20 or 21 years of

age. Therefore, according to Harley (1986),

Singleton (1989) and Moyer (2004), age is

considered to be one of the factors that affect


86

language learning strategies. As a result, this

study cannot be generalized to different age

group population.

These previous studies show that Asian

students are likely to sometimes use the

strategies with no difference between males

and females. As a result, as the population of

this study is Asian or Thai students, the results

of the previous studies also matches with this

study. There are also similar research findings

on this matter.

Goh and Foong (1991) study gender and

the language learning strategies of Chinese

students who learn English as a second

language at Nanyang Technological

University in Singapore. The result shows that

all students sometimes use the strategies. The

population is around 19 years of age and study

English for at least six years. They use

Oxford’s SILL version 7.0 as an instrument.

Moreover, Lee (2003) and Su (2005), study

language learning strategies of Asian students

who learn English as a second language and

use SILL of Oxford version 7.0 as an

instrument. Their result for overall language

learning strategies is that all students

sometimes use the strategies with no

differences between males and females.

However, Bremner (1999) studies the

language learning strategies of 149 Hong

Kong students with 36 males and 113 females

students using SILL of Oxford version 7.0.

The results of the study are quite different

from the others. It shows that students have

some strategies that they use more than the

others. Compensation and metacognitive

strategies are used the most and memory

strategy is of their least preference.

From the researcher’s perspective, I

would like to suggest that Asian students tend

to have learning strategies used in the same

direction, which sometimes use the strategies.

On the other hand, there are a few studies like

Bremner (1999) that show the result in an

opposite direction. As a result, this topic still

needs further investigation.

REFERENCES

Bremner, S. (1999). Language Learning

Strategies and Language Proficiency:

Investigating the Relationship in Hong

Kong. Canadian Modern Language

Review. 5(4), pp. 490-514. Retrieved

from

http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/

d27w088833436k7x/

Ebel, R. (1999). Encyclopaedia of educational

research. Toronto: Engros.

Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult

language learning styles and strategies in

an intensive training setting, The modern

language journal, 74(3), 311-327.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language

acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Graham, S. (1997). Effective Language

Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.

Griffiths C. (2004, February 4). Language

Learning Strategies: Theory and

Research. Occasional Paper, 1. Retrieved

from

http://www.crie.org.nz/research_paper/c_

griffiths_op1.pdf.

Goh, C. C. M. & Foong, K. P. (1997). Chinese

ESL Students’ Learning Strategies: A

Look at Frequency, Proficiency, and

Gender. Hong Kong Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 2(1) June, pp. 39-53.

Retrieved from

sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/5/500018.pdf Harley, B. (1986). Age in second language

acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.

Kamarul, S. M. T., Mohamed A. E., Nik M.

R. N., Yusoff, Zamri M. (2009). A

Closer Look at Gender and Arabic

Language Learning Strategies Use,

European Journal of Social Sciences,

9(3). Retrieved from

ttp://www.eurojournals.com/ejss_9_3_04.

pdf

http://www.crie.org.nz/research_paper/c_griffiths_op1.pdf

http://www.crie.org.nz/research_paper/c_griffiths_op1.pdf


87

Kim, S. J. (2004). Coping with Cultural

Obstacles to Speaking English in the

Korean Secondary School Context. Asian

EFL Journal, 6, 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-

journal.com/Sept_04_ksj.pdf

Kim, U., Triandis, H., C., Choi, S-C., & Yoon,

G. (1984). Individualism and

collectivism: Theory, method, and

application. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Kraft, C. & Nichel, B. (1995). Review Essay:

Perspectives on Languages and

Communications, Journal of Women in

Culture and Society, 3, pp. 638-651.

Lee K. O. (2003). The relationship of school

year, sex and proficiency on the use of

learning strategies in learn English of

Korean junior high school students. Asian

EFL Journal. September. Retrieved from

http://www.asian-efl-

journal.com/sept_o3_ok.php

Marshall, C. (1991). Teachers’ learning

styles: how they affect student learning.

The Clearing House, 64, pp. 225-226.

Maubacha, A.M. and Morgan C. (2001).The

relationship between gender and learning

styles amongst A level modern languages

students , Language Learning Journal,

Summer, 23,pp. 41-47. Retrieved from

http://www.ittmfl.org.uk/modules/teachin

g/1f/paper1f3.PDF

Moyer, A. (2004). Age, Accent and

Experience in Second Language

Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.

Mulalic, A., Parilah M. S., Fauziah A. (2009).

Perceptual Learning Styles of ESL

Students. European Journal of Social

Sciences ,7( 3). Retrieved from

http://www.eurojournals.com/ejss_7_3_1

0.pdf

O’Malley, J.M. & Chamot, A.U. (1990).

Learning Strategies in Second Language

Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Oxford, R.L. & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables

affecting choice of language learning

strategies by university students. The

Modern Language Journal, 73(3), pp.

291-300.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning

strategies: what every teacher should

know. Boston Mass: Heinle a Heinle

Publishers.

Penger et al. (2004). Comparison, validation

and implications of learning style theories

in higher education In Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use

and performance on language tests: A

structural equation modeling approach.

Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the

University of Cambridge.

Reid, J. M. (1984). Perceptual learning styles

preference questionnaire available, from

J. Reid, Department of English,

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY

82070 (1987) The perceptual learning

style preferences of ESL students. TESOL

Quarterly, 21, pp. 87-111.

Reid, J. M. (1987). The Learning Style

Preferences of ESL Students TESOL

Quarterly, 21(1). Retrieved from

http://hufs.davidboesch.com/GSE_YLDo

wnloads/Reid.Joy.LearningStylePreferene

sESLLearners.pdf

Reid, J. M. (1998). Understanding learning

styles in the second language classroom.

United States of America: Prentice Hall

Regents.

Singleton, D. (1989). Language Acquisition:

The age factor. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.

Su, M. (2005). A Study of EFL Technological

and Vocational college Students’

Language Learning Strategies and their

Self-Perceived English proficiency.

Journal of Foreign Language Teaching.

2(1)Retrieved from http://e-

flt.nus.edu.sg/v2n12005/su.htm Taguchi, T. (2002). Learner factors affecting

the use of learning strategies in cross-

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/sept_04_ksj.pdf

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/sept_04_ksj.pdf

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/sept_o3_ok.php

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/sept_o3_ok.php

http://www.ittmfl.org.uk/modules/teaching/1f/paper1f3.pdf

http://www.ittmfl.org.uk/modules/teaching/1f/paper1f3.pdf

http://www.eurojournals.com/ejss_7_3_10.pdf

http://www.eurojournals.com/ejss_7_3_10.pdf

http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v2n12005/su.htm

http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v2n12005/su.htm


88

cultural contexts. Prospect, 17(2), pp. 18-

34

Tannen, D. (1992). You just don’t understand.

New York: William Morrow.

Tatarinceva, A. (2009). Influence of the

gender factor on a student’s learning style

and achievements in language learning.

Transport and Telecommunication

Institute. Retrieved from

www.tsi.lv/Research/Conference/MIP_20

09/12.pdf

Wafa A.S. (2003) Language learning strategy

use in Palestine, TESL-EJ, 7(2). Retrieved

from http://www.tesl-

ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume7/ej26/ej2

6a3/

Wasanasomsithi, P. (2003). A study of

learning style of EFL learners. Retrieved

25 December, 2012, from

http://www.culi.chula.ac.th/

Watanasin, P. (2004). A study of learning

styles of students enrolled in one business

English class at the university level.

(Master of Arts thesis, degree in Business

English for international communication

at Srinakharinwirot university)

Wehrwein, E. A., Heidi L. L. and Stephen E.

D. C. (2007), Gender differences in

learning style preferences among

undergraduate physiology students,

Advan . Physiol. Edu. 31, 153-157.

Retrieved from

http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/fu

ll/31/2/153

Yang, N.D. (1998). An interviewing study of

college students’ English learning

strategy use, Studies in English language

and literature, 4, 1-11.

http://www.tsi.lv/research/conference/mip_2009/12.pdf

http://www.tsi.lv/research/conference/mip_2009/12.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume7/ej26/ej26a3/



http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/31/2/153

http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/31/2/153

gender differences in language learning style and …

Documents